Supreme Court Decision: ‘Cars will be Treated more like Houses’
May 5th, 2009 by josh farley
A U.S. Supreme Court decision two weeks ago may have gone by with little fanfare, but its monumental impact will be felt across the country.
Arizona vs. Gant concerned a man convicted of cocaine possession. He’d been driving with a suspended license, and when arrested on suspicion of that charge, police searched his car.
As a regular reader of the county’s police reports, I can tell you that many felony cases are developed after police find a driver with a warrant, and then are able to search his or her car. They could find drugs, bundles of other people’s mail, or evidence or other criminal activity. And no crime gave the cops a chance to look inside more often than driving with a suspended license, or “DWLS” for short.
Until now.
The high court — which voted in an abnormally non-partisan fashion — ruled that “Police could not reasonably have believed either that Gant could have accessed his car at the time of the search or that evidence of the offense for which he was arrested might have been found therein,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
So if police didn’t have reasonable suspicion to search Gant’s car for evidence of DWLS, they didn’t have cause at all.
Most everyone in the legal community agrees that the decision will have a huge impact. Kitsap County Prosecutor Russell Hauge told me the way in which police work will have to change in light of the decision.
So how do things change? Officers now “may search a vehicle without a warrant only when the suspect could reach for a weapon or try to destroy evidence, or when it is ‘reasonable to believe’ there is evidence in the car supporting the crime at hand,” according to a story in the Washington Post.
In effect, “Cars will be treated more like houses,” Hauge said of Gant.
What he means by that is this: officers will have to get a telephonic search warrant to get inside a vehicle, just like they do for a residence.
But that still makes a big difference. That means an officer will have to have reasonable suspicion a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, and that the car contains evidence of it.
The more troublesome aspect of the decision, Hauge said, is if the courts decide to made the decision “retroactive.” A defendant will undoubtedly appeal his or her case — which occurred before April 2009 — somewhere in the country based on the ruling.
If a court overturns such a conviction, it means any defendant with similar issues could appeal and have theirs overturned.
Loading ...
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
May 5th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Does the decision go the other way too? If I’m carrying a concealed weapon legally, and someone tries to car-jack me, can I shoot them because I’m protecting my ‘house’? Probably not. More protections for the guilty, less for the honest. I’m glad I didn’t pursue a career in LE – those guys have their hands tied more every day.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:56 am
If the operator of a vehicle is suspended or unlicensed and is arrested (taken into custody,warrant or no warrant), the vehicle he was operating IS evidence and may be impounded as such until the case is adjudicated…..additionally police may (should) conduct an “inventory search” of the contents of the vehicle if it will be stored as evidence or towed to a commercial storage area. (so he doesn’t later claim he had a “Rembrant” Painting stored in the trunk.)
There is ample federal case law supporting the performance of an inventory search of a vehicle….if during the search evidence of another crime, (IE, narcotics, body parts, bloodstains etc), is discovered a search warrant application should be forthwith filed and a warrant obtained.
Most perceived limitations on searches arise from lack of effective training of police personnel.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:26 am
This is a good decision. Warrentless searches are only permitted when there is a potential threat to officers. Kind of like the ‘pat down’ for weapons cops can do. That makes sense. But a phishing expedition just to find out if any other crimes were committed goes against the idea of ‘reasonable search’. If cops are suspicious of other activities, then get a warrent. I don’t understand how following the law is ‘tying their hands’.
And as Pat said above, if a vehicle is impounded, it’s normal for the car to be inventoried. If illegal substances are found then, then it’s easy enough to get a warrent and collect that evidence for a new charge.
At what point is search unreasonable. Say if you were caught speeding, does that mean that police can go through your financial records to see if you’ve been cheating on your taxes?
May 5th, 2009 at 9:01 am
There is no evidence inside a vehicle that would go to support a charge of driving with a suspended license. That is what the court says, and that is an intuitive position. So Pat’s statement above is not accurate.
The car per-se is evidence that a driver was driving, but there is nothing inside of it that is necessary to prove that suspicion.
I do not know whether a car is always impounded when its driver is found to be without a license. So a search may not ALWAYS follow a citation for DWSL.
It is more important for citizens to protect their rights than for drivers operating DWSL to be charged with additional charges as a result of fishing-searches conducted incident to DWSL stops, even if the charge is murder.
We cannot just assume our rights, which are the basis of our American identity, and which differentiate us from Chinese or Russian citizens, will always be there for us no matter how lazily we choose to protect them.
We cannot let the more fearful of our fellow citizens choose for us how vigorously we choose to protect our American heritage, that most precious of gifts.
Rights have a habit of slipping away, a little at a time, and not coming back except by blood.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:33 am
I suspect there will be a lot more vehicles impounded for cracked tail lights, windows, no litter bags, etc. when the police are suspicious. As is common, law abiding citizens will pay a price for protecting the rights of criminals in an effort to protect the rights of the common citizen.
I agree with Mars about the value of the rights. There is a point in all societies, however, when the cost to protect the right infringes more than the value of the right. The problem is to know when that occurs.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Tom, please tell me just one time that you know of that a police officer impounded a vehicle for a cracked taillight, windshield or no litter bag. In fact, give me just one example of an impound for anything other than a criminal act or a safety issue.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Probably a good decision. However, it is an even better decision if you are a criminal…not so good if you are a law abiding citizen.
I am always amazed on how hard it is for some people to follow our laws.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
What some of you critics of police do not seem to realize is….
1) Most people driving with a suspended license do not have insurance. So they are the ones hitting “YOUR” car and running. They don’t CARE.
2) Drugs, the items they just stole from “YOUR” house or car, illegal weapons and other illegal items are not just carried in a back pack. They are put in a car and driven around.
3) Those same poor souls are usually well known criminals and just don’t care about “You” even though you are defending their rights or this particualr decision.
So when citiznes start complaing about the fact they are paying for the criminals cars in the yard; and they will because criminals “DON’T CARE”, think about this article and the fact people defended the right of the criminal.
I guess Police will adapt and still try to do their job. Without much help from some citizens. Maybe you can call the judges wo made this decisio, I’m sure they’ll help.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
This is a good thing. Is reasonable suspicion really too much to ask before being searched? I’m (relatively) young, black, drive an old car, and work late hours. Quite often I look \suspicious\, so yes, I want more than those to qualify me for a search. How searching w/out reasonable suspicion will curb DWLS or protect the public from uninsured drivers is beyond me…
May 6th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Yep, figures someone would raise the race card. Suprise it took so long.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Surely this ruling will not apply at ports of entry where contraband
or illegal aliens may be hidden in the car.